BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR – II

(CONCILIATION) KURALAGAM

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.A/1017/18

Bahujan Samaj Trade Union,

37, Sadayappadoss Street,

Perambur,

Chennai – 600011 ……Petitioner/Labour Union

-Vs-

1. Lifestyle International Private Limited.,

Thiru. Rajamani,

Deputy General Manager,

No. 31/1, Poochi Athipattu,

Senkundrum, Thiruvalluvar Salai,

Chennai – 600052 …….Respondent No. 1

2. Delux Cargo India Private Limited,

Rep by its Managing Director,

No. 31/1, Poochiathipedu,

Red Hills, Thiruvallur Road,

Chennai – 600052 …….Respondent No. 2

COUNTER STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE LIFESTYLE

INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED (RESPONDENT NO.1)

The 1st respondent have received the copy of the letter dated
29.04.2019 filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II
(conciliation) Kuralaram, by Bahujan Samaj Trade Union .
1
1. The 1st respondent have read the petition raised by the petitioner
union in the Industrial Dispute under section 2(K) of the Industrial
Dispute for charter of demands, before the conciliation officer. The
1ST respondent do not admit any of the allegations made therein
and request your goodself to save my statements that are
expressly/ specifically admitted hereunder. The petitioner union is
put to strict proof of the allegations that are not expressly/
specifically admitted.
2. The industrial dispute have been raised by the petitioner union,
claims that they have been terminated from employment and the
termination of employment was illegal and they are entitled for all
benefits including backwages and services continuity. This is done
with ulterior motive against the 1st respondent for the reasons best
known to them and hence the same is liable to be rejected as not
maintainable under the industrial dispute act, 1947.
a. The 1st respondent & 2nd respondent executed a Service
Agreement dated 23 august 2018. The agreement executed
between 1st and 2nd respondent is solely for the provision of
services by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. All the
employees or other personnel (including their contracted
manpower) deployed by 2nd respondent for the provisioning of
the services shall be employees of respondent and under no
circumstances shall they be construed or considered to be
employees or agents of 1st respondent.
b. It is submitted that in the agreement in Para 36 “Service
Provider assures lifestyle that the manpower deployed by Service
Provider shall always be deemed to be the employees of Service
Provider and lifestyle shall not be held accountable for any acts

2
 done by the said manpower appointed by Service Provider and
service Provider hereby undertakes full responsibility for its
employees and hereby agrees to indemnify and keep indemnified
Lifestyle for and against any claims made on their behalf.”
c. It is further submitted that in the petition filed before the
Assistant Commissioner, it was mentioned that the 1st
respondent was a factory, and it had been employing the
contract labourers. For as the Lifesytle International Private
Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956,
and have entered into the service agreement with various
contractors for rendering different services which are temporary
and can be canceled at any point of time in accordance with the
terms of agreement, by which the employment of contract
labourers supplied by the contractors also comes to end. Thus
the employment of the unskilled contract labourers through the
contractors is a temporary labour.
3. It is submitted that the unskilled labourers (man power) supplied
by the 2nd respondent was only for the work of loading and
unloading in the warehousing unit which belong to the 1st
respondent.
4. Hence the 23 demands of the union (the petitioner union herein)
from the 1st respondent are factually incorrect. As the labourers
(contract labourers) are employee of the 2nd respondent and any
conflict, demand, relief, disengagement, wages, or any disputes in
concern with the contact labourers under the 2nd respondent, is
solely responsible.

3
 For the foregoing reasons, the 1st respondent pray this
Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to reject the industrial dispute as
not fit for conciliation and as not maintainable under the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 and requsest your goodself to drop further actions
in the industrial dispute filed in I.D.No.A/1017/18 and thus render
justice.